Which RPG is better: Underrail or Age of Decadence?

[MajorMace]

Pretty sure Underrail wins since this one's a game to begin with.

 

[Drowed]

Or maybe you just don't get the difference between a cyoa-like narrative and player-led exploration.

The difference is quite clear, but I don't know what one has to do with the other here.

To use your shitty analogy, kids don't get teleported from high school to college(...)

Obviously not, this teleport-thing is a bad mechanic (at least in the way it has been implemented - but it would be very useful in real life, I have to say). I understand why AOD uses it, but it is exactly for things like this that makes me prefer Underrail.

(...)and it's not a y/n gated check.

I mean, "you got into college"? Sounds like a yes/no answer to me.

Plenty of idiots actually do make it through.

Yeah, but not all. After all, the skillcheck of most colleges is kinda low. Gotta milk those students loans after all. But few manage to pass and graduate from more demanding college courses, or even more, from extremely difficult courses. This is all the logic of a skillcheck: the more difficult the task, the more difficult it is to accomplish. Different people have different skills and not everyone will be able to do everything.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

literally clarified

Okay.

It's generic, because things are made just to be there, and have no gravitas to them.

I only played it through completely once and it was a brawler

Clarify that. Judging AoD's story/world by one playthrough is like ordering a sushi platter, stuffing a spoon of wasabi in your mouth and exclaiming "sushi fucking sucks".

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I voted for Underrail simply because it's much larger. You can easily play it for 100-200 hours, with the expansion or maybe even without. AoD, on the other hand, is a fairly short game, taking about 10-20 hours per playthrough.

With that said, both these games have some interesting stuff, and are impressive products for indie studios, but neither can really match up with the truly great RPGs. Underrail is like a blander, less interesting version of Fallout games, with slightly deeper combat, but is weighed down by the boring tunnel nature of its world and the constant digging through trash that powers its boring crafting system. Basically take Fallout 1/2, make them much bigger, replace interesting writing and quest C&C with indie level writing, make the combat deeper but then introduce tons of trash to craft other trash, and replace outdoor maps with tunnels, and voila.

AoD, on the other hand, has some interesting ideas, and takes C&C as far as it can go, but at the expense of most other things. Again take Fallout 1/2, increase ratio of C&C to everything else, remove travel and level design to the point that the game is just combat/dialogue > C&C > combat/dialogue > C&C, and voila. An interesting experiment, but not really the way to go for most people. Also, full of meta-traps, make a wrong turn in how you play, and you will have to roll again.

 

[Vrab]

literally clarified

Okay.

It's generic, because things are made just to be there, and have no gravitas to them.

I only played it through completely once and it was a brawler

Clarify that. Judging AoD's story/world by one playthrough is like ordering a sushi platter, stuffing a spoon of wasabi in your mouth and exclaiming "sushi fucking sucks".

My one complete playthrough hasn't produced enough enthusiasm about the game for me to finish it a second time, in contrast to a number of other similar games, for reasons I named. I did a couple more partial runs which revealed some of the choice and consequence complexity, but hasn't done anything to change my mind about what I talked about. I've finished games like Underrail or ATOM or old ones like FOs, BGs, IWDs etc multiple times each, some of them even many times. So I can't help but think that since this game produced no comparable impulse to replay it, it must be because those other games are somehow better.

Now don't get me wrong, I get the c&c is very elaborate and that many complaints saying the game is on rails are off the mark. But as I said, I found all this to be too naked, like watching a skeleton or wireframe and without the aesthetic covering needed to get me involved the way other similar games have.

 

[Drowed]

With that said, both these games have some interesting stuff, and are impressive products for indie studios, but neither can really match up with the truly great RPGs. Underrail is like a blander, less interesting version of Fallout games, with slightly deeper combat, but is weighed down by the boring tunnel nature of its world and the constant digging through trash that powers its boring crafting system. Basically take Fallout 1/2, make them much bigger, replace interesting writing and quest C&C with indie level writing, make the combat deeper but then introduce tons of trash to craft other trash, and replace outdoor maps with tunnels, and voila.

AoD, on the other hand, has some interesting ideas, and takes C&C as far as it can go, but at the expense of most other things. Again take Fallout 1/2, increase ratio of C&C to everything else, remove travel and level design to the point that the game is just combat/dialogue > C&C > combat/dialogue > C&C, and voila. An interesting experiment, but not really the way to go for most people. Also, full of meta-traps, make a wrong turn in how you play, and you will have to roll again.

If only we could get the funds to make Iron Tower Studios join Stygian Software to produce a single game together, where VD would be responsible for the dialogues and C&C, and Styg for the overall design and combat of encounters and exploration, I think the result would be the dream game of a lot of people here. (Me included.)

 

[CappenVarra]

both are Very Good games (7/10 on the Holy Fallout Scale) that do some things exceptionally well and others amateurishly poorly; i bought both and consider it money well spent - and plan to buy whatever the respective devs produce next without hesitation

personally, i prefer AoD and have been playing and replaying it for years - i've created a hundred characters if i have created one, and have a current play-through ongoing (8 6 8 6 8 4 skeggox + infantry shield, crafting and lore IG) - while i've only created about a dozen Underrail characters (SMG commando going the furthest); it's a broader game but requires more dedication (that is not mine to offer one of these decades)

many losers whine about both and deserve (and receive) ridicule; many bros valiantly defend both and deserve (and receive) brofists

however, as this thread shows, there exists a certain brand of retarded newfag zealot that reacts violently even to valid critique of their favored game with shit arguments: mentioning CYOA (particularly monocled gamebooks of yore) when speaking of AoD, or the nonsensical ammo system and some of the cool-downs when speaking of Underrail - does not automatically make one a Skyrim-loving faggot not worth pissing on when on fire

reading this cringey inflammation prompts one to yet again exclaim: with fans like these, which game needs haters?

so, stop the bullshitz, start the truthz - and play the one you like without requiring everyone to agree with you, pinko